Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to make sure some Dassault airplanes are safe by changing certain seat parts to stronger ones, so they won't break if the plane lands hard. They're asking people to share their thoughts on this idea by April 12, 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation airplanes, specifically the FALCON 7X and FALCON 2000EX models. This proposed AD is in response to a report of non-certified seat tracks being used in some airplanes, which could fail during an emergency landing, leading to injury. The directive would require the replacement of these seat tracks with certified ones, following guidelines from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The FAA seeks public comments on this proposal, which must be submitted by April 12, 2021.
Abstract
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes and Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that non-certified ANCRA seat tracks were installed on some airplanes and that those seat tracks might not sustain required loads during an emergency landing. This proposed AD would require replacement of certain ANCRA seat tracks with certified (Brownline) seat tracks, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document is a proposed rule by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), announcing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation airplanes—specifically, the FALCON 7X and FALCON 2000EX models. The directive arises from a report indicating that some aircraft have been fitted with non-certified seat tracks, which might fail during emergency landings, potentially causing injuries. To rectify this, the FAA proposes replacing these seat tracks with certified ones in accordance with guidelines from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The FAA is seeking public comments on this proposal, which must be submitted by April 12, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues are evident in the document that may be of concern:
Cost Estimates: While the proposal notes that some compliance costs might be covered by warranty, there's ambiguity regarding the total financial burden on operators. This lack of detailed cost information could create uncertainty, making it challenging for operators to plan financially.
Complex Language: The document includes complex language and references to the EASA AD 2020-0188, which may be difficult for stakeholders without technical expertise to comprehend fully. Simplification or further clarification might be necessary to ensure all parties understand the compliance requirements.
Access to Reference Materials: The directive mentions the incorporation by reference of materials, but does not clearly explain how operators can obtain these materials. Ensuring broader accessibility to this information could be beneficial.
Contact Information: While contact information for further inquiries is provided, its placement within the document doesn’t stand out, possibly making it harder for those seeking additional details about the proposal.
Guidance on Feedback: Although the document specifies the deadline for public comments, it does not provide detailed instructions on what constitutes effective feedback. Without clear guidance, the quality of the feedback might vary widely.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
Broadly, this airworthiness directive highlights the FAA's initiative to ensure the safety of air travel, potentially enhancing passenger safety by addressing an identified risk. For the general public, the effective implementation of these changes could mean more reliable aircraft safety features and, consequently, a safer flying experience.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Aircraft Operators and Owners: They are directly affected by this proposal as they have to bear the costs and logistical challenges of replacing non-certified seat tracks. Operators who find that warranty does not cover these expenses might experience a financial strain, affecting smaller operators disproportionately.
Airplane Manufacturers and Suppliers: This directive could lead to increased business for certified track manufacturers like Brownline, but could negatively affect suppliers of non-certified tracks. Additionally, airplane manufacturers might face reputational concerns arising from past installations of non-certified parts.
Regulatory Bodies: The proposal reflects collaborative efforts between the FAA and European regulatory bodies like EASA, highlighting a consistent approach to addressing aviation safety concerns internationally.
Overall, while this proposed rule aims to enhance airline safety, it requires careful execution and clear communication to ensure compliance without undesirable financial impacts on stakeholders. Addressing the noted issues can facilitate better understanding and cooperation from all affected parties.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed cost estimates for compliance, only stating that some costs may be covered under warranty, which could lead to uncertainty for operators about the financial impact.
• The language regarding compliance requirements is complex, particularly in references to the EASA AD 2020-0188 and exceptions, which might be difficult for stakeholders to understand without expert guidance.
• The notice mentions incorporation by reference, but there is no clear explanation of how operators can access these materials if they are not already familiar with the process.
• The contact information for obtaining more details about EASA AD 2020-0188 could be more clearly highlighted or made more accessible within the text to ensure it stands out for those seeking additional information.
• While the document specifies the final date for comments, it lacks specific guidance on what constitutes effective or actionable feedback, which could lead to less constructive input from the public.